Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

On the much touted 'Global Warming' consensus

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well it seems obligatory that in any debate about climate change you have the guy who tells us about the 'consensus' amongst scientists that 'global warming' is man-made. So I was shocked (not really) when I read this:
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.



  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I thought everyone knew that. The general consensus is that humans are at least in part responsible for global warming, the only argument between them being how much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The article sounds and reads as a biased piece of engineered propaganda I must say.

    You could for instance have asked how many scientists believe global warming is not caused by man activities at all. Or that global warming is caused by unusual Sun activity (an old favourite claim of neocons).

    The answer, I suspect, would be just about nobody who is not funded by an oil corporation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Looking at the other articles in the side bar

    Latest Research Erodes CO2's Role in Global Warming



    Major New Theory Proposed to Explain Global Warming


    I doubt that this an unbiased report.

    Now certainly there's disagreement on scientists between what the impacts of global warming are and how the ratio between natural and man-made impact, but the majority view is that there is some impact.

    Not being a climateologist I can't independently verify it myself, so I will tend to go for the majority views (though noting that the media tend to always report the worse case analysis of what they publish)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The funniest part of it all is that even if those people genuinely didn't believe that global warming is at least partially caused by man and that it can only mean bad news for all, it would still be in their best interests to cut down the use of fossil fuels, since we all know for certain it won't last for ever.

    But apparently some people are so blinded by selfishness that they can't even see that.

    Oh well. Let them all drive monster trucks to the grocery store if they really feel it is their 'right' to do so unmolested. Who cares if oil runs out in 30 years instead of 60 eh? Never mind that a viable alternative fuel might not be available yet and that mankind might be drawn to its biggest recession and mass poverty in a century.

    It truly is flat earth-ism and and selfishness-driven stupidity on a grand scale.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    I keep imagining a hotel about to be crushed to the ground, and the manager telling people "Don't worry, we're all safe here" knowing that they aren't but thinking it won't matter once they're dead. And I don't see any sense in it at all.
Sign In or Register to comment.